Mascara applicator



Sept. 26, 1967 D. D. ANDERSON 3,343,551

MASCARA APPLICATOR Filed Dec. 16, 1964 v 2 Sheets-Sheet 1Ullllllllllllllllllllllllllllll /0 FIG. 3a /0 H6. 3b

INVENTOR: Douglas 0. Anderson B Pendieton,Neumon, Seibold 8 Williams ATTORNEKS' P 1957 D. D. ANDERSON 3,343,551

MAS CARA APPLICATOR Filed Dec. 16, 1964 2 Sheets-Sheet 2 .4 F6 b HQ 4038 J 36 ag FIG. 66 H6. 60

Doug/as D. Anderson By Pendleton, Neuman, Seibold & Williams ATTORNEYSUnitcd States Patent 3,343,551 MASCARA APPLICATGR Douglas D. Anderson,245 W. North Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60610 Filed Dec. 16, 1964, Ser. No.418,686 2 Claims. (Cl. 132-88.7)

This invention relates to a cosmetic device and, more specifically, toan improved mascara applicator capable of producing luxuriouslynatural-appearing eyelash beauty without the unflattering stuck-togetherappearance so often encountered with prior-art devices.

During recent years eye make-up has received increased emphasis and hasbecome an almost indispensable part of the cosmetic treatment of thefemale face, the application of mascara to the eyelashes to curl,lengthen and color the hairs thereof and thereby provide a beautifyingsetting for the eyes having become commonplace for both casual andformal grooming. Unfortunately, the makers of priorart devices for theapplication of mascara, such as brushes with spirally wound or multipletufts or random strips of bristles, wands or cyclindrical rods withthreaded extremities and the like, continue to produce only minorvariations on the same old applicator concepts with, in one instance,the addition of a small comb, which allegedly functions to separatelashes already stuck together with mascara.

None of these awkwardly-inefiicient concepts was born of creativeconsideration of the actual functional requirements of a mascaraapplicator. The prior-art applicators tend not to separate the lashhairs but rather to deposit mascara crudely, causing the lashes to sticktogether in unattnactive matted clumps. The small comb device alsoperforms ineifectively its allegedly corrective separating operation.These prior-art devices make it virtually impossible, particularly inthe hands of the inexpect, to consistently achieve the lengthened andcurled-appearing, individually-mascara-coated eyelash hairs essential tothe desired naturally luxurious fringed look.

The ineffectual performance of these prior-art devices has alsoencounaged a number of dangerous and timeconsuming corrective practices,such as piercing and tugging at mascaraed clumps of lashes withsharply-pointed implements, e.g., toothpicks, in order to achieve somedegree of lash separation.

Moreover, some of the prior-art devices are otherwise inherently quiteunsafe to use. Further, they are difficult to properly clean after usebecause of accumulated, hardened, retained mascara. Still further, as aresult of these cleaning difficulties, they are replaced more frequentlythan otherwise would be necessary and may be unsanitary as well.

It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a mascaraapplicator free of such deficiencies of the prior-art devices. It is amore specific object of the present invention to provide a mascaraapplicator which by its design produces a physical separation of theeyelash hairs when the mascara is being applied. It is another object ofthe present invention to provide a mascara applicator which permits thestroking and/ or sweeping of the individual eyelash hairs to give thedesired lengthened, curled effect. It is a further object of the presentinvention to provide a mascara applicator which is readily cleaned,continually reusable, and sanitary. It is a still further Object of thepresent invention to provide .a mascara applicator which is safe to use,even by the inexpert, and obviates the need for unsafe, time-consumingcorrective practices. These and other objects of the present invent-ionwill become apparent :as a detailed description proceeds.

The objects of the present invention are achieved by a mascaraapplicator comprising in combination an elon- 3,343,551 Patented Sept.26, 1967 gated supporting base; a plurality of individual,substantially-equally-spaced resilient monofilaments discretely mountedin at least one upstanding longitudinal row on the base so that themonofilaments of a particular row extend therefrom in a single plane;and an elongated handle portion extending from an extremity of saidbase.

It has been discovered that the mascara applicator must also becarefully designed and dimensioned in the light of the length,thickness, stiffness and spacing of human eyelash hairs. For example,about 10 to 60 monofilaments, preferably about 20 to 50, typically about25 to 40, are mounted in each row so that at least about inch of eachmonofilament projects from the base, preferably about to 1) inch,optimally about to inch. Each of the monofilaments should have a.cross-sectional area of about 3 to 20 mils, preferably about 4 to 15mils, optimally 5 to 12 mils, and should be spaced from adjacentmonofilaments in the same row by about 2 to 30 mils, prefenably about 4to 20 mils, optimally about .6 to 15 mils.

Greater diameter filaments would permit fewer monofilaments but wouldundesirably result in less separation and may result in dangerousstiffness. Greater spacing would also undesirably result in lessseparation. Monofilaments spaced too closely would tend to peel offmascara already applied, rather than depositing it, resulting in clumpson the lashes or accumulations on the monofilament base.

As already indicated, it is essential that the monofilaments should beresilient, both for perfection of mascara application and as a safetyconsideration. In practice, a stiffness (modulus of elasticity) of about100,000 to 1,000,000 p.s.i. is considered satisfactory, preferably about200,000 to 800,000 p.s.i. In one particular embodiment nylonmonofilaments are employed such as Tynex 3 or Herox 2 nylon levelfilaments (E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Wilmington 98, Delaware),preferably Tynex 3 filaments having a stiffness of about 550,000 p.s.i.and a diameter of about 5 to 12 mils. The exposed or free ends of themonofilaments are preferably neither sharpened nor pointed and should befree of undue irregularities.

The base and handle portions may be of conventional materials such aswood, metal or plastic, preferably plastic, e.g., polyethylene,polypropylene, nylon, polystyrene, cellulose acetate, celluloseacetate-butynate, polyvinyl chloride, or the like. The base and handleportions are preferably integrally formed, e.g., by molding, or they maybe manufactured separately and secured to one another by conventionalmeans. In one embodiment a separate mounting for each row ofmonofilaments may be employed and these mountings are inlaid, adhered,welded, fused or otherwise secured to the base portion, also byconventional techniques.

The present invention and the advantages associated therewith willbecome more apparent from the following detailed description of specificembodiments, read in conjunction with the accompanying drawings whichform a part of this specification, wherein:

FIGURE 1 is a perspective view of one embodiment of the mascaraapplicator of the present invention, drawn to approximate scale, whichembodiment features a single row of monofilaments and a handle portionhaving an axis parallel or coincident to that of the base portion;

FIGURE 2 illustrates the use of another embodiment of the mascaraapplicator when applying mascara to the human eye, the embodimentfeaturing a handle portion offset at an angle to the base portion; I

FIGURES 3a, 3b and 3c are plan, end and elevation views on a fourfoldmagnified scale of a portion of the embodiment of FIGURE 1;

FIGURES 4a and 4b are plan and end views on a fourfold magnified scaleof a portion of an embodiment wherein the length of the monofilamentsextending from the base is varied so that the free ends terminate so asto form a concave curvature;

FIGURE 5 is a plan view on a fourfold magnified scale of a portion ofstill another embodiment wherein the base is concavely curved in adirection of the monofilaments;

FIGURES 6a and 6b are plan and end views on a fourfold magnified scaleillustrating a portion of an embodiment where multiple rows ofmonofilaments, spaced at 90 angles, are employed; and

FIGURES 7a and 7b are plan and end views on a fourfold magnified scaleof a portion of still another embodiment featuring multiple rows whereinthe length of the monofilaments in each row diifers.

In the description the term upstanding is employed merely to describethe monofilaments in relation to the base and not the up direction inthe absolute sense. Thus, as shown in FIGURE 1, the upstandingmonofilaments would in fact be downward-depending if the applicator wererotated 180 about its longitudinal axis.

In FIGURE 1, the embodiment comprises polystyrene plasticelongated base10 having mounted thereon a plurality of upstanding Tynex 3monofilaments, indicated by reference numeral 12, which have a diameterof 8 mils and are of sufiicient length to extend above the base by aboutinch. While the small scale of the drawing precludes a clear showing ofthe individual, discretely-mounted monofilaments 12, thirty-two areemployed in the illustrated embodiment. The equal spacing between thebristles or monofilaments 12 is approximately 11 mils. The monofilaments12 are mounted on base portion 10 by conventional means, e.g.,cementing. Elongated handle portion 14 is formed or molded integrallywith base 10 and is also of polystyrene plastic. Base 10 isapproximately 1% inches in length and handle portion 14 is about 2%inches in length, whereby the over-all length is approximately 3%inches.

Referring to FIGURE 2, the monofilaments 12 are shown intermeshed withthe eyelashes 16 of human eye 18. As aforementioned, handle portion 20is angled with respect to base 10 to provide convenience of handling andpossible clearance away from eyebrow 22. It should be noted that themonofilaments 12 mechanically separate and sweep the individual eyelashhairs as the mascara, which may be any type of mascara, including cake,liquid, cream and paste types, typically conventional cream mascara, istransferred from the applicator to the eyelashes.

The expanded scale views of FIGURES 3a, 3b and 30 point up the fact thatmonofilaments 12 are individually and discretely mounted on base 10,which markedly contrast with the tufts of multiple bristlescharacterizing many prior-art devices. The individual and discretemounting of the monofilaments of the present invention, in addition tofacilitating the desired sweeping, coating, coloring and lengtheningaction during application of the .mascara, may after use be readilycleansed so that the applicator may be sanitarily reused until themonofilaments themselves wear out over, likely, a period of years.

In FIGURES 74a and 4b, monofilaments 24 vary in length above base 26 sothat the free ends thereof terminate concavely. Thus, the free ends ofthe monofilaments register approximately with the natural convexity ofthe human eyelash.

Still another embodiment is shown in FIGURE 5 wherein base portion 28 isconcavely curved in a direction of monofilaments 30, which are mountedthereon at varying angles and extend thereabove varying distances.Again, as in FIGURES 4a and 4b, the free ends of the monofilaments 30terminate concavely. Handle portion 32 is integrally formed with base 28and extends therefrom at a substantial angle, e.g., about 45, althoughthis angle may be varied as desired, e.g., from 0 to 60.

In FIGURES 6a and 6b multiple rows of monofilaments 34, 36, 38 and 40are mounted at intervals on the periphery of elongated base 42. Multiplerows permit a twirling or spinning action of the applicator, whereby theeyelash hairs are repeatedly swept or combed. While four rows areillustrated in FIGURES 6a and 6b, it should be understood that variousnumbers of rows may be employed, preferably, but not necessarily, equal-1y spaced peripherally. It should be noted that the multiple rows aremounted so as not to produce a spiralling efiect when the applicator istwirled. Spiralling tends to undo separation.

In FIGURES 7a and 7b still another embodiment is illustrated, i.e.,multiple rows of monofilaments 44 and 46 mounted on base 48, which rowsdiffer in length. While only two rows are illustrated, it should beunderstood that other numbers of rows can also be employed. It shouldalso be understood that the free ends of one or more rows may terminateconcavely or with any other desired curvature. Still further, it shouldalso be understood that the spacings, diameter of the monofilaments,stiffness and the like may likewise be varied.

From the above description it is apparent that the objects of thepresent invention have been achieved. While only certain embodimentshave been illustrated many alternative modifications will be apparentfrom the above description to those skilled in the art. These and otheralternatives are considered within the spirit and scope of the presentinvention, and coverage thereon is intended by this application.

Having described the invention, what is claimed is:

1. A mascara applicator comprising in combination:

(a) a single elongated base;

(b) a single upstanding longitudinal row on said base comprising about10 to 60 individual, discretelymounted, substantially-equally-spacedresilient monofilaments having a stiifness (modulus of elasticity) ofabout 100,000 to 1,000,000 p.s.i., the monofilaments of said rowextending from said base in a single plane, each of said monofilamentshaving sufficient length to extend at least about A to 4; inch from saidbase and having a cross-sectional thickness of about 3 to 20 mils andbeing spaced from adjacent monofilaments in the said row by about 2 to30 mils; and

(c) an elongated handle portion extending from said base so as toprovide a meansfor manually manipulating the applicator.

2. The mascara applicator of claim 1 including a plurality of saidsingle rows mounted on said base so that the single planes of eachintersect at an angle of at least about 90 and have a common axis.

References Cited UNITED STATES PATENTS 1,494,448 5/1924 Sookne 14-1671,693,229 11/1928 Relmar 15-167 1,901,866 3/1933 Bryan 15-167 1,905,3994/1933 Wagner 132-79 2,507,299 4/ 1950 DAlelio et al. 15-167.1 2,964,04512/ 1960 Otto et al. 132-85 3,097,386 7/1963 Marani 15-167 3,263,2588/1966 Burge 15-167 FOREIGN PATENTS 776,191 10/ 1934 France.

1,210,939 10/ 1959 France.

RICHARD A. GAUDET, Primary Examiner.

G. E. MCNEILL, Assistant Examiner.

